imnes wrote:

Janne wrote:b) The universal menubar saves space, since each application-window does not have to replicate the menubar. There would be just one desktop-wide menubar. This saved space becomes more and more important as small-screen devices like netbooks become more widely used.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does moving the menubar save space? Say the menu takes up 24 pixels, what's the difference whether that 24 pixels is at the top of the screen or in the application window, you still have 24 less pixels to work with?

Nick

This person explains it really well, I think.
showthread.php?pid=13935#pid13935

imnes wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but how does moving the menubar save space? Say the menu takes up 24 pixels, what's the difference whether that 24 pixels is at the top of the screen or in the application window, you still have 24 less pixels to work with?

If you want to vertically tile two or more windows you save the space of having only one menu. It's not a common setup as screens are wider than tall, but it still happens sometimes I suppose.

Alec wrote:This person explains it really well, I think.
showthread.php?pid=13935#pid13935

Okay that is useful. I was thinking the menubar at the top was strictly the menubar, I didn't realize you could add other things to it and get rid of the panel usually at the bottom of the screen.

Nick

imnes wrote:

Janne wrote:b) The universal menubar saves space, since each application-window does not have to replicate the menubar. There would be just one desktop-wide menubar. This saved space becomes more and more important as small-screen devices like netbooks become more widely used.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does moving the menubar save space? Say the menu takes up 24 pixels, what's the difference whether that 24 pixels is at the top of the screen or in the application window, you still have 24 less pixels to work with?

Nick

If you have three app-windows open, that's three menubars consuming space on the screen. If you used universal menubar, you would only have one menubar, regardless of the number of open app-windows.

And then there's the benefit you get from having that menubar at the screen-edge.[hr]

imnes wrote:

Alec wrote:This person explains it really well, I think.
showthread.php?pid=13935#pid13935

Okay that is useful. I was thinking the menubar at the top was strictly the menubar, I didn't realize you could add other things to it and get rid of the panel usually at the bottom of the screen.

Nick

My ideal setup would have the menubar at the top, with some additional functionality (clock, maybe Kmenu and/or pager, and systray), with taskbar (and ONLY taskbar) being at the bottom.

maybe it's just me, but my taskbar tends to get quite crowded, and I'm always thinking of ways to maximize the amount of space taskbar has at it's disposal. Which is hy I would like to dedicate the bottom-panel to just systray,

Funny, I was saw that KDE 4.1.3 is on on reddit was idly wondering if you could do this yet. One google later and here I am, adding my 2 cents to the discussion.

I used Windows exclusively as a developer for 5 years before I got a job at a visual effects company where we used SGIs. Linux has become the standard in my industry, and every studio I've been to has used KDE as their default desktop environment. The main reason is configuration -- most 3D software is painful to use if you don't have control over how the window manager passes clicks or captures keystrokes. Once KDE is properly configured, it just gets out of the way and you stop thinking about it.

So, I've been using KDE at work since about 2001 (3.3 at the moment, although we're upgrading to CentOS 5 in the next few months). In 2006 I bought a MacBook Pro, and it has since become my primary computer for everything except software development.

Until I took the plunge, I found Macs annoying to use. It takes about a week to adjust to the various differences (and there aren't really that many), but once you do, it's soooooo much nicer to use. Now I don't really notice the differences between the two systems. Mac OS X just feels easier. Maybe it takes fewer clicks to accomplish tasks. Offtopic, but: KDE 4 feels clunkier than KDE 3. It's slowly improving, but it still feels awkward.

Even on a huge monitor (I've got a 24-inch widescreen at home), having the menu bar at the top of the screen is fantastically useful. For one thing, you rarely use it. Mac UI design seems to emphasize localizing actions. The most commonly used actions are in the toolbar. Actions local to screen objects are available via the context menu (right click or ctrl+click). And in the rare case you do need to use the menu bar, it requires no fine muscle control -- just an up/left mouse movement.

Also, the smaller something is on the screen, the harder it is to position your mouse over it, and the longer it takes to do so. Menus are a single line of text high -- that can be pretty small on a big monitor. Putting the menu bar on the edge of the screen fixes that.

As someone pointed out earlier, it's annoying on OSX that the menu bar is only allowed on one monitor. I think it should follow the mouse.

Having KDE default to the "menu-bar-at-top" approach would definitely differentiate it from Gnome and Windows. Users who prefer it the old way would switch it back, in the same way that some people prefer the old launcher menu. But I think new users would benefit.

I don't understand the "oh noes we can't copy OSX!" argument. KDE should strive to be usable, not unique. At the moment, KDE 4 looks and feels much like Windows Vista, which is hardly the pinnacle of usability.

markv wrote:As someone pointed out earlier, it's annoying on OSX that the menu bar is only allowed on one monitor. I think it should follow the mouse.

Dingdingding, we have a winner! I have been pondering as to how this problem should be fixed. Should there be two menubars, one for each screen? But then you come along and solve the problem just like that ! A menubar that follows the mouse. Ingenious!

Janne wrote:

markv wrote:As someone pointed out earlier, it's annoying on OSX that the menu bar is only allowed on one monitor. I think it should follow the mouse.

Dingdingding, we have a winner! I have been pondering as to how this problem should be fixed. Should there be two menubars, one for each screen? But then you come along and solve the problem just like that ! A menubar that follows the mouse. Ingenious!

So then, in that aspect, we wouldn't be copying OS X.

Zarin wrote:

imnes wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but how does moving the menubar save space? Say the menu takes up 24 pixels, what's the difference whether that 24 pixels is at the top of the screen or in the application window, you still have 24 less pixels to work with?

If you want to vertically tile two or more windows you save the space of having only one menu. It's not a common setup as screens are wider than tall, but it still happens sometimes I suppose.

May I ask a question: how would the menu bar save place when it only support KDE3 applications? My computer is running gtk2, kde3 and kde4 applications simultaneously and put only the menubar of kde3 applications on the top does *not* help at all.

Consider if you're running Firefox and see if the menubar really saves screen place at all.[hr]

Janne wrote:A menubar that follows the mouse. Ingenious!

This only works if you always use mouse with menu. But I almost never use mouse with menu, I always use the keyboard to access menu and the menubar should actually follows current active/focus window instead of follow the mouse.

i.e. if the active application window is on desktop 2 the menubar should on desktop 2, if the active application window is on desktop 1 the menubar should on desktop 1, if the active application window in on both desktop 1 and desktop 2 the menubar should on both.

pansz wrote:May I ask a question: how would the menu bar save place when it only support KDE3 applications? My computer is running gtk2, kde3 and kde4 applications simultaneously and put only the menubar of kde3 applications on the top does *not* help at all.

Consider if you're running Firefox and see if the menubar really saves screen place at all.

To my knowledge the new menu under development works for Gtk+, Qt3 and Qt4 applications. That's around 98% of all applications available on Linux that will be covered.

Zarin wrote:

pansz wrote:May I ask a question: how would the menu bar save place when it only support KDE3 applications? My computer is running gtk2, kde3 and kde4 applications simultaneously and put only the menubar of kde3 applications on the top does *not* help at all.

Consider if you're running Firefox and see if the menubar really saves screen place at all.

To my knowledge the new menu under development works for Gtk+, Qt3 and Qt4 applications. That's around 98% of all applications available on Linux that will be covered.

how can we test this "new menu"?

zrchrn wrote:how can we test this "new menu"?

There has been no development on it for six months and it's nowhere near complete, but if you REALLY want to give it a shot it's in playground/base/plasma/applets/menubar

This only works if you always use mouse with menu. But I almost never use mouse with menu, I always use the keyboard to access menu and the menubar should actually follows current active/focus window instead of follow the mouse.

I think the idea that menu follows the mouse only applies to the screens and not the apps. Meaning that if you move the cursor to another physical screen, the menu moves to that screen. If you happen to hover over another app, the focus of the menu would NOT change. You would still have to explicitly focus on the app by clicking.

i.e. if the active application window is on desktop 2 the menubar should on desktop 2, if the active application window is on desktop 1 the menubar should on desktop 1, if the active application window in on both desktop 1 and desktop 2 the menubar should on both.

I think the idea is that if the app is in screen 1, and the mouse-cursor is in screen 2, the menu is in screen 2. This solves the problem where the mouse is in screen 2, but the menu is in screen 1. It makes accessing the menu quite difficult.

This become more apparent if you have an app that is spread across several screens. With this scheme the menu would always be in the screen where you mouse-cursor is, making it easier to access.

Let me offer a contrarian view on the Mac OSX interface. I have a Mac and have been using it for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that it has a severe lack of usability. It looks pretty and flashy, and it's easy for noobs to learn, but the actual usability is mediocre.

The menubar is one example. If you go to any usability site you'll find rants on the horrible MDI interface. KDE even has an official policy against the MDI. Yet the entire Mac OSX desktop is one giant MDI. Ever use an MDI and accidentally do something to the wrong document? I get exactly the same problem on the Mac with regards to apps. I frequently end up using the wrong app's menubar.

It's nice that the Mac forces some conformity on the menus, but putting them on a different part of the display from the applications is bad. Is the ease of not missing the top edge of the screen so much more valuable than having the menu always right next to your mouse? I don't think so.

Don't let Steve Job's Reality Distortion Field affect you! :shade:

IMO, the Mac-like menubar is no must-have, it would be just nice to have it, and I don't think it would require much maintenance once it's finished.

It's not about whether one likes the menubar or not (or even if it's horrible or not from the usability side), it just should be an option.

blueget wrote:IMO, the Mac-like menubar is no must-have, it would be just nice to have it, and I don't think it would require much maintenance once it's finished.

My sentiments exactly.